TUSD [Tucson Unified School District] swiftly punishes incorrect speech. According to Adelita Grijalva, criticizing the radical politicization of students is forbidden. Last week Mark Stegeman said Mexican American Studies reminded him of a cult. Last night Mark Stegeman, was purged for his politically incorrect words. Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) Governing Board President, Mark Stegeman was ousted from his seat as Board President and replaced by fellow Board Member Miguel Cuevas at last nights Board meeting. Board member, Adelita Grijalva, called for the ouster, which passed 3-2 with Stegeman and Michael Hicks voting no.

[Excerpted as required by source. Click through to read rest of article.

The amount of historical idiocy and fallacies surrounding the history of the Southwest is staggering, chief among them the "Aztlan" fairy tales. What's the truth? How did the Spanish Europeans conquer the Southwest? The "conquistadores" (that means "conquerors") did it with the lance, and the lash.

For example, in 1541 Coronado entered present-day New Mexico (which included present-day Arizona during the Spanish era) searching for the "lost cities of gold." One of his first actions upon meeting the natives was to burn 100s of them alive in their dwellings, for not handing over suspected horse thieves. That is how Spain conquered the natives of the present US Southwest--not with hugs and kisses. It was certainly no love-fest between long-lost brown-skinned soul-mates, as it is often portrayed today by the delusional Aztlaners, who spin the "new bronze race of Mestizos" toro-mierda.

By 1821, Mexico City was strong enough to overthrow the even more decrepit and ineffectual Spanish rule. However, the distant provinces of the current U.S. Southwest were far beyond the reach of the authority of the independent but strife-torn government of Mexico City. These distant northern provinces received neither military protection nor needed levels of trade from the south. Under Spanish rule, trade with the USA was forbidden, but at least Spain provided trade and Army protection from hostile Indians. Under Mexican abandonment and neglect, the Southwest received neither trade nor protection from Mexico City.

For example, Comanches and Apaches ran rampant in the 1830s in this power vacuum created by Mexican neglect, burning scores of major ranches that had been active for hundreds of years and massacring their inhabitants. Mexico City could neither defend nor keep the allegiance of its nominal subjects in these regions. Nor did it provide needed levels of trade to sustain the prior Spanish-era standard of living. Mexican governmental influence atrophied, withered and died at the same time that American pathfinders were opening up new routes into the region.

Increasingly, a growing United States of America was making inroads into the Southwest, via ships into California, and via gigantic wagon trains of trade goods over the Santa Fe Trail from St. Louis. The standard of living of the SPANISH in these provinces subsequently increased enormously, which is why they did not support Mexico City in the 1846-48 war. In fact, the Spanish-speaking inhabitants of the Southwest NEVER considered themselves "Mexicans" at all, ever. They went, in their own eyes, from SPANISH directly to AMERICAN. To this very day, if you want a punch in the nose, just call an Hispanic native of New Mexico a "Mexican!"

So how long did Mexico City have even nominal jurisdiction (in their eyes) over the American Southwest? For only 25 years, during which they had no effective control, and the area slipped backwards by every measure until the arrival of the Americans. The SPANISH inhabitants of the Southwest NEVER transferred their loyalty to Mexico City, because all they received from the chaotic Mexican government was misrule, neglect, and unchecked Indian raids.

Since then, how long has the area been under firm American control? For 150 continuous years, during which time the former Spanish inhabitants of the region, now American citizens, have prospered beyond the wildest dreams of the Mexicans still stuck in Mexico. To compare the infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals etc of the two regions is to understand the truth. The Mexican government has been mired in graft, corruption, nepotism and chaos from the very start until today. The ordinary Mexican peons have been trampled and abused, while only the super-rich elites have thrived. This is why millions of Mexicans want to escape from Mexico today, to enjoy the benefits of living in America that they can never hope to obtain in Mexico.

And because today Mexico is a corrupt third-world pest-hole, (despite having more millionaires and billionaires than Great Britain), we are now supposed to let any Mexican from Chiapas, Michoacan or Yucatan march into the American Southwest, and make some "historical claim" of a right to live there?

From where does this absurd idea spring?

At what point in history did Indians and Mestizos from Zacatecas or Durango stake a claim on the American Southwest? Neither they nor their ancestors ever lived for one single day in the American Southwest. The Spanish living in the Southwest in 1846 stayed there, and became Americans by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. There were no Spanish inhabitants of the Southwest who were marched to the border and driven into Mexico. It didn't happen. The SPANISH in the Southwest welcomed American citizenship, which brought stability, protection from Indian raids, and a vast increase in their standard of living with the increase in trade.

In summary, NO current inhabitants of Mexico have ANY claim on even one single inch of the Southwest!

NOT ONE citizen of Mexico is sneaking into the USA to reclaim property their ancestors were deprived of, NOT ONE.

They are criminal invaders and colonizers, pure and simple.

It's time Americans learned the true history, as a counter to the prevalent Aztlaner fairy tales.

Id suppress it the way King Philippe I/II dealt with their ancestors ~ ship em out!

Not the way the Spanish system worked. They intentionally kept dissenters from emigrating so they wouldn't make problems in the colonies. You had to be approved as a good Catholic and loyal Spaniard to get permission. The French did about the same.

Only the English encouraged their troublemakers to go to the colonies.

No, the English chopped off their heads. The Spanish allowed them to leave. The French were of both minds about that ~ and in the early to mid 1500s fought what are called "The Religious Wars".

After King Philippe II/III forced the Treaty of London (1604) down every-body's throat the European development of the Americas began for real. France had Canada. Russia had the NW. Spain had most of North America. The English were kinda sorta given the East Coast from Nova Scotia (a Franco-Scottish deal) down to wherever La Florida ended.

The Spaniards actually laid out bench marks over a considerable bit of North America to serve as future sources for any surveys that needed to be made to subdivide the place for development.

The English zone ended at the Easternmost cordillera of the Appalachians!

I'd always thought it was strange that many of the first people brought to formerly Spanish America/now English America were from Eastern and Central Europe. Then, studying how it came to be that the Spanish actually let England set up colonies I suddenly realized that those people must have been Protestants living in lands the Hapsburg Empire thought best served by having only Catholics.

English North America became the Hapsburg's Protestant Ghetto!

Kind of sends a chill up your spine.

One evening recently I spent most of the evening reading and digesting the text of the Treaty of London (1604). It explained every single thing I needed to know about why my ancestors moved here rather than someplace else ~ and even why those who were captives were brought here and not just worked to death in Swedish or Russian workcamps.

I suspect this will, in the end, strengthen the state’s case to cut $15 million from TUSD. However, the leftists that run Tucson will go down, if at all, screaming every bit as hard as the Wisconsin unions.

15
posted on 08/30/2011 3:36:50 PM PDT
by Mr Rogers
("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")

Tucson is extremely far left. The victory for the right was that the monster has effectively been killed, or at least cannot continue being subsidized by the State. However, this purge is part of the cost.

Years ago, I was entertained by a pirate radio station in Tucson, which honest-to-goodness was a Marxist-Maoist station. They were just finishing up an old recording of a Joan Baez concert, then launched into a rant about the “persecution” of the former East German dictator Erich Honecker, and how he should rightfully be made dictator of unified Germany and all West German politicians should be imprisoned as traitors.

Then they went on and on about how Peru was soon to be “liberated” by the Shining Path terrorists, and how its people would be freed from their polluted cities to work in rice paddies, or something.

The Mexican is becoming more obvious in his “Reconquista.” Now they are overtly replacing non-Mexican governors. Maybe the fear of replacement will activate our corrupt politicians, as nothing else will.

21
posted on 08/30/2011 4:40:48 PM PDT
by AEMILIUS PAULUS
(It is a shame that when these people give a riot)

Yes that is the history as it actually happened, not the fairy tale that is being taught today. I am also tired of hearing how Texas was settled by Mexicans and not Americans/Texicans. Truth is the same issues were in Texas-Spain and later Mexico could not keep their settlers there supported with protection or even bare essentials in Texas any more than they could the rest of the Southwest. It was a very long way from Mexico City by freight wagon, and they encountered fierce Indian attacks trying to reach settlers. Truth is most Spanish and Mexican settlers in Texas did not stay because of the lack of support. “Americans” from U.S. were allowed and even encouraged to settle in Texas by Mexico because Mexico knew they could not possibly hold claim to land they had no settlers on. Problem was the American/Texican settlers had more in common with and more alliegence to the United States than Mexico, they wanted their independence from Mexico because Mexico was unable to supply them or protect them either- they could easily trade with the United States but that was not allowed- in theory anyway.

We didn’t STEAL anything from Mexico either- what we got we got through conquering or purchasing- same as every other culture obtained land back through history.

22
posted on 08/30/2011 5:09:18 PM PDT
by Tammy8
(~Secure the border and deport all illegals- do it now! ~ Support our Troops!~)

Yes that is the history as it actually happened, not the fairy tale that is being taught today. I am also tired of hearing how Texas was settled by Mexicans and not Americans/Texicans. Truth is the same issues were in Texas-Spain and later Mexico could not keep their settlers there supported with protection or even bare essentials in Texas any more than they could the rest of the Southwest. It was a very long way from Mexico City by freight wagon, and they encountered fierce Indian attacks trying to reach settlers. Truth is most Spanish and Mexican settlers in Texas did not stay because of the lack of support. “Americans” from U.S. were allowed and even encouraged to settle in Texas by Mexico because Mexico knew they could not possibly hold claim to land they had no settlers on. Problem was the American/Texican settlers had more in common with and more alliegence to the United States than Mexico, they wanted their independence from Mexico because Mexico was unable to supply them or protect them either- they could easily trade with the United States but that was not allowed- in theory anyway.

We didn’t STEAL anything from Mexico either- what we got we got through conquering or purchasing- same as every other culture obtained land back through history. Texas fought for and won their own independence from Mexico before becoming a State.

23
posted on 08/30/2011 5:18:57 PM PDT
by Tammy8
(~Secure the border and deport all illegals- do it now! ~ Support our Troops!~)

I think you're overblowing the pivotal importance of the T of L. Treaties came along every decade or so for a good many centuries. Few were as determinitive in the long run as, for example, the Treaty of Westphalia.

Tried to look up the T of L, but couldn't find much. Do you have a link?

Russia had the NW.

Didn't get to AK till over a century and a half later.

In 1604 nobody could have split up N. America in the way you say since nobody really knew the size and shape of the continent.

It is correct that Spain was still dominant in Europe, but ominous signs were building up.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.